Summary:
- Discussed Tokyo F2F planning
- Discussed status of Multi-col test suite, CSS2.1, Namespaces, Regions,
and proposal to define intrinsic widths of multi-column elements.
- RESOLVED: Switch CSS test suites to Mercurial, providing there is adequate
easy-to-follow documentation.
====== Full minutes below ======
Present:
Arron Eicholz
Elika Etemad
Simon Fraser
Daniel Glazman
Vincent Hardy
Koji Ishii
John Jansen
Brad Kemper
HÃ¥kon Wium Lie
Peter Linss
Edward O'Connor
Alan Stearns
Regrets:
Tab Atkins
David Baron
Bert Bos
David Singer
<RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/05/18-css-irc
Scribe: vhardy
Administrative
--------------
glazou: The listserv at W3C has issues. I sent the agenda yesterday evening.
It can take a ong time to see an email in your inbox.
glazou: this is for W3C mailing lists in general, not just the CSS lists.
arno: some of the email just seem to never make it to my inbox.
glazou: this happened to me too.
arno: yes, I do not see other people's email.
glazou: other agenda items?
vhardy: will we have a meeting next week?
glazou: not sure, we have a chairing problem.
fantasai: maybe Bert or szilles can chair?
glazou; yes, I'll try to find a replacement.
Tokyo F2F
---------
<glazou> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/32061/css-ftf-2011-06
glazou: please respond to the questionaire about the next F2F.
<plinss> http://wiki.csswg.org/planning/japan-2011
glazou: please also fill out the information about your flight and
arrival/departure info.
glazou: agenda items for Kyoto meeting. For now, we have CSS
Regions/Exclusions, etc... (see above link).
glazou: are there other items?
Multi-col Test Suite
--------------------
Hakon: could we discuss the multi-col test suite?
hakon: the test suite is a start.
glazou: how complete is it?
hakon: it is a bit short on functionality.
hakon: we need more test cases for edge cases.
hakon: we would like to reach about 200 tests.
hakon: we currently have about 20.
hakon: I think Microsoft has between 50 and 100 tests.
johnjan: It is Microsoft's intention to contribute the tests.
glazou: other agenda items?
<johnjan> we just want to make sure we're not going to submit a bunch
of duplicates to the opera tests
Tokyo F2F (cont.)
-----------------
glazou: anything else about Kyoto?
plinss: I'll be there a few days in advance.
vhardy: the SVG WG will not meet in Kyoto.
glazou: yes, we had a message from them.
glazou: Cameron McCormak sent a message on May 12th. The SVG WG will
reschedule the meeting likely late July in the US.
CSS2.1
------
glazou: next agenda item. CSS 2.1 review period ended yesterday.
glazou: 23 answers. 21 are ok-go ahead. 2 are requesting changes.
glazou: some of the changes sent by Mohamed are related to references.
glazou: David from Mozilla had a comment about issue 225. Nokia mentioned
it too. Saying we could add it to the document since it is resolved.
glazou: if we have add the resolution to the document, it could delay
things. I would propose to move as fast as possible.
fantasai: Bert said the director could agree to make that change.
glazou: I am worried about a technical change that is not just editorial.
fantasai: I think the Director should make that decision.
fantasai: nobody objects to the change.
glazou: the Director could also be worried that not everybody reviewed
the issue 225 resolution.
fantasai: That should be the director's call.
glazou: our responsibility as chairs is to decide on what we should
recommend for the director.
glazou: unfortunately, Bert is not on the call.
fantasai: I don't think we should recommend against the change
glazou: If we can make some of the changes Mohamed recommended.
glazou: please remind your AC rep. about PR release about 2.1
<glazou> http://wiki.csswg.org/planning/agenda
glazou: let's move to other agenda items.
Publishing Regions
------------------
vhardy: what do I need to do to prepare for WD publication, other than
get a WG resolution. Formatting, etc?
fantasai: talk to me and Bert off-line.
vhardy: ok, will do.
glazou: did you incorporate comments in the draft.
vhardy: I am in the process to do that.
glazou: we cannot make a decision to publish to WD because we do not
have enough attendance in that call.
glazou: I propose we wait until next week if we have a call or decide
during the F2F.
Namespaces
----------
glazou: next item, we can talk about namespaces.
glazou: I had an AI to ping the i18n WG.
kojiishi: Actually, this was just discussed in the i18n meeting earlier
today.
kojiishi: we should have an answer by next week.
glazou: I hope it will not imply a lot of changes. If it does not, we
can publish.
glazou: anything else on that topic?
Intrinsic Widths of Multi-col Elements
--------------------------------------
glazou: anything else we should discuss today?
fantasai: I have a question about what to do about the intric width
of multi-col elements.
hakon: I do not think this is a multi-col specific issue.
hakon: I think this is an issue that we need to address, just not
as a multi-col issue.
glazou: do you mean that the algorithm to compute the width of columns
is orthogonal to the width of the elements themselves.
fantasai: where should I address this?
fantasai: we need to define the shrink wrap algorithm for table and
other use cases.
fantasai: I would like if this issue should be left undefined or if
we should add it to the appendix of writing modes.
hakon: yes, I think you should do.
fantasai: multi-col has special considerations, such as the
max-content-width that is different for multi-col elements.
hakon: I do not think we should single out the multi-col elements.
hakon: we have simplified the multi-column specification.
fantasai: I would like to address use cases with this
fantasai: we have 3 options:
<fantasai> a) leave shrinkwrap undefined, as currently in css3-multicol
<fantasai> b) define shrinkwrap to ignore multi-col properties,
calculate as if columns weren't there
<fantasai> c) define shrinkwrap with consideration of multicol properties
hakon: there is already interoperable implementations of shrinkwrap
in multi-col. It is not documented, but it is interoperably
implemented -- you use the same width as you would if it's not
multicol
hakon: if we document it, it should document current implementation.
fantasai: The current spec doesn't consider shrinkwrap an important
situation, so it's left undefined. But it's important in
mixed writing modes.
fantasai: and other horizontal-only use cases we had not though of yet.
glazou: so we are not ready yet to standardize that?
fantasai: no, it is just that shrinkwrapping multi-col elements is that
it is more important than we thought.
glazou: we have a pretty stable multi-col spec. that we can move along
the spec. track.
glazou: the shrinkwrap algorithm needs to be extended separately, and
implementors will have to do their work.
hakon: yes, I agree.
hakon: if there are new use cases, we could address them in a later spec.
glazou: yes, if we wait to address all use cases, we will drag the effort.
fantasai: I am not asking to modify the multi-col spec.
hakon: but you are asking to specifiy multi-col functionality in a
different spec.
glazou: do we have a proposal?
fantasai: yes.
glazou: we need the whole group to be present for this discussion.
glazou: we cannot resolve it today. We can discuss it next week or during
the F2F.
glazou: changing something in the feature related to the relation between
two specification is something we can still discuss.
glazou: in the meantime, I propose we make progress on the multi-col spec.
and make progress on the test suite, move it along as it is today.
We have implementations, use cases on the web.
fantasai: ok with me.
hakon: ok with me.
glazou: no change in the multi-col spec. for now. We will discuss shrinkwrap
issues related to multi-col with hakon present.
Mercurial
---------
plinss: I proposed change to mercurial. Did not hear any objection.
Planning to make the change today.
fantasai: do we have documentation on the mercurial client.
arronei: I have concerned about the documentation as well. We would need
a place with documentation.
fantasai: we would need instructions for common functionality.
plinss: I can put this together.
fantasai: documenting merge process would be great.
(discussion about CVS/SVN/Mercurial)
glazou: any objection to move to mercurial?
fantasai: none if we have instructions.
<fantasai> very simple, clear, easy-to-follow instructions
<fantasai> not "here's a link to the manual" :)
(no objection)
RESOLUTION: moving test suite to mercurial.